Should gay conversion therapy be banned in Ireland?

freshpopcorn wrote: »

That's good to know. I honestly haven't met any.

Interesting enough I have a few gay friends. Most of them made since all the work and activism I did during the last referendum. Met some really great people in that time.

A couple of people I know recently said something similar to "I have not met any straight acting gay men" and I instantly asked them "Were you aware my friends xxxx and yyyy where gay?". They had no idea and were surprised to find out.

I wonder how often the reason people think they have not met any straight acting gay men - or have doubts about the ratios of the straight acting ones to the "camp" or "flamboyant" ones - is related to the fact that they just are not aware they have met them.

mickrock wrote: »

He ended up falling in love with a woman, having children and marrying her, although he says he still identifies as gay. I wonder what his willy actually wants.

It is not unheard of. The women I am in a relationship with identify as otherwise entirely straight too. Yet the emotional and physical connection they made when they met and developed since is as real as the one they each have with me. And anyone who newly learns about our relationship tends to say "oh you are bi then" and they deny this entirely. They identify as wholly straight.

I also hate tequila myself. Every single one I have tried has been awful to me. With the exception of one I was given at a recent house party which I really really enjoyed. I since bought a bottle - but I do not consider myself a tequila drinker.

While we might be constitutionally against certain interactions with certain groupings - the potential is always there that one individual example of that group is a sufficiently different outlier to the norm that it becomes something else to us.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There are lots of things in Ireland that exploit vulnerable people.

So? I have always found it a bit of a dodge when people ask "What should be done about this" and the answer is little more than "Well what about that thing over there". Why change the subject?

But yes - there are a lot of other exploitations of vulnerable people that should also be dealt with. The fact that some have not should not be a reason not to deal with others.

But I think there are two other factors that should be considered before comparing GCT with other exploitations.

One - is that this "therapy" can have harmful side effects. For example while telling people their haunted bread will save their soul - or that little bottles of water are actually medicine - is clearly nonsense it does not generally (there are exceptions) cause any harm other than put the exploited target out of pocket. Some forms of therapy however can genuinely leave a person worse off or badly harmed.

Two - is that some exploitations are aimed at genuine conditions. Water Medicine is exploiting the vulnerable sure - but generally for conditions they actually have. And one can even argue at the power of placebo. But the agenda of GCT is not just to cure a disease but to invent one too. They are in the business not just of claiming to cure Homosexuality - but to establish Homosexuality as a condition _to be cured_. Water medicine is not inventing your headache - only falsely claiming to cure it.

So yes - I agree with you there are other exploitations that need to be dealt with too. But with limited resources I think we can prioritise those that invent the disease along with the cure - and those that cause actual harm in their application beyond that of merely ripping people off their money.

^ That is why I included the example of tequila too. I would absolutely not identify myself as a tequila drinker. Yet I imagine I am going to buy a few bottles of this particular one over the next 20 years.

I think when we identify with labels we gravitate towards labels that identify what we wholly or at least mostly are. But we do so knowing that those labels admit of exceptions at times. If you ask my partners if they are bi they would instantly tell you "No I am not sexually attracted to women. I am however sexually attracted to _her_". I would not say "I like tequila" but I would say "I like this drink right here".

I guess the point being that our attractions and subjectivity are not simply a small handful of Venn Diagrams. Any given individual fits into a multitude of Venn. And the attraction they feel for each other has zero to do with their position in the male/female Venn space. But to their membership of _other_ Venn spaces that actually do attract them. Ones that are important enough to them to override those that _other people_ are attempting to label them using.